Workfare - a blast from the past? Contemporary work
conditionality for the unemployed in historical perspective
FLETCHER, Del <http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9569-3203>
Available from Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at:
http://shura.shu.ac.uk/9152/
This document is the author deposited version. You are advised to consult the
publisher's version if you wish to cite from it.
Published version
FLETCHER, Del (2015). Workfare - a blast from the past? Contemporary work
conditionality for the unemployed in historical perspective. Social Policy and Society,
14 (3), 329-339.
Repository use policy
Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the
individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print
one copy of any article(s) in SHURA to facilitate their private study or for noncommercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or
use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain.
Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive
http://shura.shu.ac.uk
Workfare- a blast from the past? Contemporary work conditionality for the
unemployed in historical perspective
Abstract
During 2011 the UK Government introduced the Mandatory Work Activity scheme which
requires JSA claimants to work in order to continue receiving benefit. Workfare has been
viewed as a radical departure in the evolution of British labour market policy. However, an
historical review of workfare in inter-war Britain reveals that the most recent proposals
merely resuscitate a heritage of compelling the long-term unemployed to work for their
benefit. Both then and now workfare has flourished in times of economic crisis and
particularly where Governments have pursued economic theories which exalt the market.
Historical analysis reveals important continuities and changes in the nature of contemporary
workfare.
Key words: Workfare; Unemployment; Labour Camps
Word count: 4,926 (excluding references)
1
Introduction
During May 2011 the UK Coalition Government introduced the Mandatory Work Activity
scheme which requires Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) claimants to undertake a month's full
time work activity in order to continue receiving benefit. Failure to complete a placement
without 'good cause' results in a benefit sanction of three months, rising to six months for a
second breach. A mandatory pilot scheme for young people in London (aged 18-24 years) to
take 13 week work placements so that they can continue to claim benefits was also
announced in August 2012. The previous Labour Government had also planned to introduce
mandatory work activity. Workfare, where unemployed people are obliged to undertake
designated labour if they want to continue receiving state benefits, has stimulated a great
deal of academic discussion.
Many conceptualisations of workfare are predicated on the notion that there has been an
historical rupture in the approach taken by the state to the long-term unemployed. Theodore
(1998) argues that there has been a shift from the welfare state to a Schumpetarian workfare
state. This is signalled by the punitive nature of programmes which attempt to recast 'supplyside' problems as the product of deficient work ethic. Piven (2010) and Dean (2012) argue
that workfare seeks to reinforce the chronically insecure work that has flourished over the
past four decades. Wacquant (2009) views it as emblematic of a shift towards the punitive
treatment of poverty resulting from a number of interconnecting factors including the decline
of the Keynesian welfare state, the advent of post-Fordism and the rise of neoliberalism.
This has resulted in the 'double regulation of the poor' through the introduction of workfare
and the expansion of the prison system.
However, policy makers and social theorists alike have paid little heed to the lessons of
history. This paper undertakes an historical review of workfare in inter-war Britain. It is my
contention that this may be particularly illuminating given the ahistorical nature of the
contemporary discussion. Furthermore, this period is apposite for reflecting on current policy
concerns. First, both periods were characterised by an analogous set of circumstances
including the near collapse of the banking system and structural transformations of the
economy (Stiglitz, 2012). Second, economic liberalism was hegemonic during both periods.
Finally, it is possible to glean personal testimonies of those forced to attend the labour
camps of the inter-war period.
Workfare in the New Millennium
There has been a series of UK policy reforms since the mid-1980s that emphasise greater
compulsion and enforce a stricter benefit regime. Unemployment benefits have always been
conditional on unemployment being involuntary, with an expectation of active job search. It is
the increasingly sharp policy focus on individual behaviour that is new (Larsen, 2001). The
introduction of JSA in October 1996 was an important landmark that represented a
fundamental change in the rights and responsibilities of the unemployed (Finn, 1996).
Eligibility for JSA depends upon a claimant entering a Jobseeker's Agreement which is a
compulsory condition of eligibility for benefit. The introduction of JSA intensified the
requirements placed on claimants to provide evidence of compliant behaviour and
introduced a tougher set of sanctions.
2
There is now a strong mainstream political agreement in favour of conditionality, whereby
welfare entitlements are increasingly dependent on citizens agreeing to meet compulsory
duties or approved behaviour. The UK Labour Governments advanced welfare conditionality
as a core element of their reform agenda, based on 'the principle that aspects of state
support, usually financial or practical, are dependent on citizens meeting certain conditions
which are invariably behavioural' (DWP, 2008: 1). The 2008 Green Paper No one written off:
reforming welfare to reward responsibility signalled that the era of workfare had begun. 'We
believe there is real value in long-term unemployed people working full-time to develop their
work habits and employability' (DWP, 2008; 42).
More recently, conditionality has been extended to previously 'inactive' groups, such as lone
parents. This approach has been further intensified by the Coalition Government. The 2010
White Paper Universal Credit: Welfare that Works (DWP, 2010) introduced further changes
including:



increasing the level of conditionality that is applied to some recipients;
strengthening the sanctions regime so that it more effectively encourages individuals
to meet their responsibilities; and
introducing Mandatory Work Activity so that some recipients will be required to take
part in full-time work activity for four weeks.
'Having strong and clear sanctions are critical to incentivise benefit recipients to meet their
responsibilities. Currently, we believe that sanctions are set at too low a level' (DWP, 2010:
28). Consequently, a new sanctions structure will be introduced. Some claimants face the
prospects of losing benefits for up to three years. It is in this context that Slater (2012: 2)
argues that this represents: 'the most punitive welfare sanctions ever proposed by a British
government'. Peck (2001) has argued that a cross-party 'radical consensus' has emerged
which favours replacing the welfare state with a workfare state.
Mandatory Work Activity (MWA) has been promoted both as a means of helping individuals
acquire the habits of work and combatting fraudulent behaviour. 'The placement will be up to
four weeks and aimed at helping the recipient develop the labour-market discipline
associated with full-time employment such as attending on time and regularly, carrying out
specific tasks and working under supervision' (DWP, 2010: 29). It would also give individuals
'the opportunity to demonstrate their compliance with the Jobseeker's regime' (DWP, 2010:
29). The scheme is delivered by a range of contracted providers who source placements in
voluntary sector organisations or institutions that deliver a community benefit. From May
2011 to February 2013 53,720 individuals started a MWA placement (DWP, 2013). A further
£5 million was committed in June 2012 to allow up to 70,000 annual referrals to the
programme (DWP, 2012).
Historical review: workfare in the inter-war period
The road to the labour camps of the 1930s
Workfare has precedents going back to the English Poor Law of 1536 (Standing, 2011).
However, the existence of British labour camps in the inter-war period is little known and
has led some to argue that they are emblematic of our 'secret history' (see Humphries and
Gordon, 1994). Their inmates have become something of a forgotten army, dumb occupants
of a bleak historical no-man's land (Colledge and Field, 1983). This paper seeks to give a
3
voice to those forced to attend the camps in order to shed some light on contemporary
debates.
The genesis of the camps lay in long-standing concerns about the contaminating effects of
the unemployed 'residuum' and the need to physically separate them from the respectable
working class. The residuum was dangerous, not only 'because of its degenerate nature, but
also because it's very existence served to contaminate the classes immediately above it'
(Stedman Jones, 1984: 283). In 1889 Charles Booth put forward proposals for the removal
of the very poor from the East End of London to labour colonies. Alfred Marshall and Samuel
Barnett also called for 'colonising' the unemployed residuum. Sidney and Beatrice Webb
advocated labour colonies to remove the 'unemployable' from the labour market, and avoid
the danger of 'parasitic competition with those who are whole' (quoted in Welshman, 2006:
586).
Assisted emigration was another option (Morris, 1994). In 1928 a Ministry of Labour scheme
led to 10,000 unemployed miners travelling to Canada on assisted packages to gather in the
harvest. 'We were met, I think by the entire police force of Quebec. They stood shoulder to
shoulder …. and we had to march between them into a huge hangar' (Will Philpen quoted in
Humphries and Gordon, 1994: 127). Patrick Keogh recalled: 'Feeling ran high when the
immigration authorities demanded we should take a job at no guaranteed wage or starve.
There was an uproar, and when the men became hungry, cafes were looted' (quoted in
Croucher, 1987). Many failed to find work and became destitute. Travelling back to Winnipeg
hundreds of men were interned in an underground cage with an armed guard on the door.
Some rioted and others forced the Canadian Pacific to ship them back to Britain free of
charge (Croucher, 1987).
During the late 1920s the problem of long-term unemployment - a concept unacknowledged
before the First World War- had begun to exercise policy makers (Whiteside, 1991). From
1920 until the outbreak of war British unemployment never fell below 10% and 23% of the
British labour force was out of work in 1932/33 (Hobsbawn, 1994: 93). 'There had been
nothing like this economic catastrophe in the lives of working people for as long as anyone
could remember' (Hobsbawm, 1994: 93). The camps were a response to the perceived
effects of long-term unemployment on the motivation and behaviour of the unemployed. The
intention was to preserve the physical and mental fitness of unemployed workers (Whiteside,
1991).
The rising cost of unemployment also led to a 'search for the scrounger' whereby local
officials purged claimants who could not prove they were making every effort to find work
(Deacon, 1976). A court of referees decided cases in which the onus of proof rested upon
the claimant. 'Tens of thousands every week were being deprived of their benefit by the
arbitrary rulings of courts of referees under this clause. Not only were they suffering loss of
benefit, but their character was being impugned, a decision against them under this clause
being tantamount to declaring that they were wasters and ne'er-do-wells who did not want to
work' (Hannington, 1977: 180).
The adherence of all Governments to the financial orthodoxy of balanced budgets severely
constrained policy options (Burnett, 1994). Moreover, Digby (1989: 49) argues that this
'tipped the balance towards more reactionary social programmes, since these were usually
cheaper'. There were few attempts to create jobs but labour transference was encouraged.
4
Between 1929 and 1938 government-assisted migration averaged 32,000 individuals per
annum (Burnett, 1994: 260). Training centres were established to help prepare trainees for a
new life in Canada, Australia or the south of England. However, the Ministry of Labour
identified: 'a residual group that was unable to learn a trade and loathe to break old
associations' (quoted in Colledge and Field, 1983: 155). The labour camps were targeted at
these individuals.
Personal experiences of the labour camps
The camps were brought into existence by Proposal Number 3225 to the Labour Emergency
Expenditure Committee in 1928. They targeted: 'those, especially the younger men who,
through prolonged unemployment, have become so 'soft' and temporarily demoralised that it
would not be practical to introduce more than a very small number of them into our ordinary
training centres without danger to the morale of the centre' (Ministry of Labour official quoted
in Colledge, 1989: 6). The Blackpool centre was the first to open in April 1929. 'Its aim is to
bring each man into the physical condition necessary for obtaining and keeping a job and to
revive the habits of good time-keeping and steady work' (Ministry of Labour quoted in
Colledge and Field, 1983: 156). Between 1929 and 1938 almost 190,000 men were admitted
to the camps, the peak year was 1934 when nearly 33,000 attended (Croucher, 1987).
Those registered as unemployed for at least six months and resident in the 'distressed
areas' were originally targeted but this was later reduced to three months and extended to
the rest of Britain. The official position was that attendance was 'voluntary'; although the
1934 Unemployment Act made attendance compulsory it was never fully implemented. In
practice, local unemployment officers coerced individuals to attend by threatening the loss of
benefit. 'Men are continually being pressed by labour exchange managers to volunteer for
these camps'. (Hannington (1977: 94). This is corroborated by personal testimonies. 'In 1934
I went to High Lodge [a Labour Camp]. Didn't have any choice, mind. It was a case of if I
didn't go they would stop my dole' (Mr Grant quoted in Colledge, 1989: 19).
The 'training' took the form of a 12 week course comprising tough, menial manual labour.
This included tree felling, breaking rocks, road making and the levelling of playing fields.
'They had us digging trenches. We would dig it down one day then the next day another
group would come and fill it in. That is all we done for three months' (Mr Grant quoted in
Colledge, 1989: 19). Responding to charges that the men were forced to undertake futile
tasks the Ministry of Labour replied: 'the operations themselves, so far as we are concerned,
are secondary as a mere means to an end' (quoted in Colledge and Field, 1983: 156). 'They
said you were supposed to learn something, but I still don't know what we learned. It was
nothing!' (Mr Heard quoted in Colledge and Field, 1983: 164).
The purpose of the camps was disciplinary and they were run on strict military lines. The
camp manager was invariably from the armed forces. 'When we got to the camp, this fella
came out, they called him the major, he had these britches on and a hat and stick. In his
hands he had a brown pair of leather gloves and he was banging these against his thigh like.
He said, ''You're here to work, not bloody shirk and work you will'' (Ben Russ quoted in
Humphries and Gordon, 1994: 138). A team of 'gangers' worked directly with the men who
were marched to work in military style. 'This ganger you know he had a white-handled pick
shaft and wherever he went he kept tapping it on the ground as much to say, ''You start any
nonsense and I'll belt you with it'' (Ben Russ quoted in Humphries and Gordon, 1994: 138).
5
A former Ebbw Vale steelworker recalled that: 'The first thing they did was supply you with a
pair of heavy nailed boots, a pair of corduroy trousers, and some kind of shirt. So wherever
you did go people knew who you were- you were a convict in a sense, because you were all
dressed the same' (William Heard quoted in Colledge and Field, 1983: 163). Another
complained that: 'Instead of giving the impression that there was the chance of a new life
with a trade in your hands, you felt that this was a place of punishment for a collection of idle
layabouts on the criminal fringe' (Donald Kear quoted in Burnett, 1994: 263). 'There is the
atmosphere of the prison or the barrack square; they must rise at a certain time in the
morning and come for a roll-call; they must be in bed for a fixed time at night. They are
isolated from the rest of the workers by the camps being situated many miles from the towns'
(Hannington, 1977: 112).
Those leaving prematurely had their benefit stopped for six weeks. 'This is well understood
by the men, and therefore, once inside the camp, they have to stick it out or be faced with
loss of benefit and consequent starvation' (Hannington, 1977: 95). Nevertheless, a
substantial proportion left early to return home (Ministry of Labour Annual Report quoted in
Colledge, 1989: 13). By the late 1930s almost one in three young men sent to the camps
quit or were discharged before completing their training (Humphries and Gordon, 1994).
A special commissioner for the Depressed Areas estimated that only one in five trainees
obtained work at the end of their training. 'Under the schemes now in operation insufficient
employment is found for those who have been trained. The majority drift back home after
training and feel the effort made has been wasted' (Stewart quoted in Hannington 1976: 95).
Moreover, the stigmatising effects of attending the camps further undermined employment
prospects. 'The tendency of bosses to look down on youngsters who had gone to the labour
camps as hopeless cases further undermined the scheme' (Humphries and Gordon, 1994:
116).
The ineffectiveness of the camps is corroborated by personal testimonies. Mr Wild of
Sheffield was unable to find a stable job throughout the 1930s despite attending four
different camps. In 1936 he returned home prior to completing the course at Wallsend. 'I
came back home and I had a right job then 'cause they'd terminated me benefit, because I'd
broke my contract' (quoted in Colledge, 1989: 41). Ben Russ turned down the offer of selling
ice cream from a wheelbarrow in London. ''Hell, I've just come back from Brechfa [a labour
camp] man, I wants a decent job in Swansea near. He told me dole was stopped and he
pointed his finger at me and he said, ''Join the bloody army''….There wasn't much I could do,
and I thought that the army couldn't be much worse than Brechfa so I went to join up'
(quoted in Humphries and Gordon, 1994:140).
Workfare: continuity and change
Workfare has flourished in times of economic crisis especially where Governments have
sought to balance budgets and pursued economic theories which exalt the market. In April
1929 Churchill summarised the conventional wisdom: 'no permanent additional employment
can, in fact, and as a general rule, be created by state borrowing and state expenditure'
(quoted in Hayburn, 1983: 280). More recently, economic liberalism has flourished in
response to the crisis of the long post-war economic boom (Glyn, 2006). It has made sound
money the cornerstone of domestic economic policy (Gamble, 2001). This has been
reflected in the UK Coalition Agreement (2010:7) which asserts: 'We are also agreed that the
6
most urgent task facing this coalition is to tackle our record debts, because without sound
finance, none of our ambitions will be deliverable.'
The MWA represents both continuity and change with respect to inter-war workfare. The
target population of workfare has changed. The labour camps were exclusively for young
unemployed men which supports the view that they were primarily disciplinary institutions.
However, women were not viewed as central to the labour market given the 'prevailing
ideology of maternity and domesticity' (Digby, 1989: 62). Consequently, the limited
interventions for women were mainly in domestic work (King, 1999). Nevertheless, males
have again bore the brunt of workfare, approximately 70% of individuals starting MWA
placements are men (DWP, 2013).
The MWA is a mandatory scheme whereas attendance at the camps was, albeit notionally,
on a voluntary basis. The power to direct men to the camps was approved in legislation but
was abrogated after nine months. This resulted in 1,800 claimants being compelled to attend
(Whiteside, 1991). The Ministry of Labour recognised the dangers of compulsion
undermining the suitability of trainees for job placements. King (1999) also suggests that
political support for compulsion ebbed further away when the Nazi labour system became
known. Nevertheless, this discontinuity should not be exaggerated since labour exchange
officials often gave the impression that attendance was compulsory.
During both eras the escalating costs of welfare resulting from burgeoning unemployment
has been a key concern and the perceived need to balance budgets has constrained policy
options. However, the MWA is explicitly viewed as an instrument for deterring benefit claims
and reducing welfare expenditure. A major part of the debate about its introduction in policy
circles has been about the scale of potential 'deterrent' effects. This reflects the view that
many claimants have become 'dependent' on benefits. The impact assessment of the MWA
has found evidence of a deterrent effect (DWP, 2012). In contrast, the sanctioning of camp
inmates was primarily viewed as a means of enforcing attendance albeit in a context of an
officially endorsed 'search for the scrounger' (Deacon, 1976).
Workfare is now devoid of the overt penal overtones emblematic of the labour camps.
Personal testimonies are full of references to their authoritarian nature, poor food, and
bullying. Suicides, riots and strikes also occurred. MWA participants are not physically
separated from their home communities and the experiences of those who have completed
their placement have been largely positive (DWP, 2012). Nevertheless, workfare continues
to be viewed as a form of punishment and there remains an explicit link with criminality in
terms of combatting fraudulent behaviour. 'We've found that a month's full time activity can
be a real deterrent for some people who are either not trying or who are gaming the system'
(Grayling quoted in DWP, June 12th 2012).
Contemporary conceptualisations of workfare have often focused on its compulsive and
punitive function. Theodore (1998) highlights the increasingly punitive nature of welfare
programmes that attempt to recast 'supply-side' problems as the product of deficient work
ethic. Wacquant (2009) argues that the advent of neo-liberalism has resulted in the 'double
regulation of the poor' that involves both workfare and the expansion of the prison system.
From this perspective workfare is designed to push its beneficiaries into the low paid jobs.
Similarly, Piven (2010) and Dean (2012) argue that workfare seeks to reinforce the low wage
and insecure work that has characterised the post-industrial labour market.
7
However, a lack of historical focus has meant that many social theorists have exaggerated
the degree of change taking place. The policy discourse of both periods is strikingly similar.
There is the same pre-occupation with the motivation and behaviour of the workless. There
is the familiar imperative to cut benefit expenditure and root out those that are 'not genuinely
seeking work'. The lexicon is one of contracts, compliance and compulsion. Moreover, the
'double regulation' of the poor was also evident in the inter-war period in the form of labour
camps and burgeoning prison populations. The number of male prisoners in England and
Wales rose by over 60% from 1918 to 1933 (Home Office 2002).
Continuity is most obviously reflected in the use of front-line public employment service staff
to discipline 'recalcitrant' groups. King (1999) argues that the use of labour exchange
officials to select men to attend the camps distinguished it from US experience. Those
viewed to be resistant to government schemes, especially labour transference, were
targeted. This complemented other monitoring aspects of exchange officials' work (McKibbin,
1990). Similarly, referral to the MWA is at Jobcentre Plus adviser discretion and the focus is
those felt to be lacking the necessary commitment to finding work (DWP, 2012). In
'trailblazer districts' advisers were also asked to refer those with a history of two or more
sanctions (DWP, 2012).
A defining feature of both interventions is that the 'training' provided is not intended to lead to
the acquisition of new sills. Training is designed less to impart vocational skills than to
maintain morale, reinforce work discipline and prevent long-term benefit receipt (Whiteside,
1991). Then as now the main target is young people who might otherwise become long-term
unemployed. Workfare also continues to have a strong political appeal because it allays 'the
irritation commonly provoked by the thought that some people are able to live at the public's
expense without having to stir a finger to earn their keep' (Whiteside, 1991: 90).
The promotion of workfare continues to draw upon social psychological theories of
unemployment. These suggest that the unemployed progress in stages to a state of
personal and social disintegration (cf. Jahoda et al, 1972). The Ministry of Labour argued
that prolonged unemployment 'has robbed many men both of the physical fitness and of the
attitude of mind which would enable them to undertake heavy work' (quoted in King, 1999:
173). A substantial body of research over the last eighty years has demonstrated that
unemployment causes mental health problems including anxiety, depression and negative
self-esteem (Fryer, 2013). However, inter-war surveys found little evidence of
'demoralisation' amongst the unemployed i.e. the disintegration of daily routines, collapse of
intellectual interests and abandonment of political activity (Welshman, 2013). McKibbin
(1998) also noted that most returned to work when economic conditions improved.
The re-appearance of workfare underlines the resilience of behavioural explanations of
labour market marginality. During the inter-war years the concept of the 'unemployable'
stressed the role of 'defects of character' (see Welshman, 2013). The camps were targeted
at those deemed to be making insufficient effort to find work and resistant to labour
transference. The re-emergence of mass unemployment has led the UK Government to
question the work ethic of some groups. 'Work must be seen as desirable and something to
be aspired to' (HM Government, 2012: 46). It has been suggested that family breakdown or
being brought up in a deprived community may mean that individuals fail to assimilate a
conventional work ethic in their formative years (see Gallie, 1994).
8
However, evidence of a lower commitment to work among such groups remains elusive.
Dean and Taylor-Gooby (1992) found that the long-term unemployed are not separated from
the rest of society but follow a value-orientation in which material dependency on the wage
relation is seen as natural and necessary to personal identity. The Social Change and
Economic Life Initiative found that the unemployed suffered serious disadvantage but they
did not have a markedly lower commitment to work than those in employment (Gallie, 1994).
A study of the lives of people on low incomes concluded that they had aspirations just like
others in society (Kempson, 1996). Digby (1989: 131) cites American research that
concluded: 'workfare programmes did not create the work ethic, they found it'.
The stigmatisation of the long-term unemployed during both periods has been facilitated by
their exclusion from the public discourse. The airing of the personal testimonies of the
unemployed by the BBC radio programme, 'Time to Spare' (1934), was instructive.
Government officials publicly sought to discredit the first-hand accounts of unemployed
contributors. 'The simple and radical act of letting the unemployed speak for themselves
while the Commons debated the Unemployment Bill was enough to give the left a field day
against the government which responded with an astonishing display of threat' (Scannell
1980: 25). Stigmatising depictions continue to dominate the public discourse. 'The poor are
largely hidden from public view, relegated to prejudiced depictions of benefit scroungers in
tabloid stories and popular television programmes that dwell on the titillating sins of the
underclass' (Toynbee, 2003: 12).
Workfare underlines the ideological nature of welfare policy development. The idea for the
camps rested upon little more than a perception amongst senior civil servants that the longterm unemployed required physical reconditioning to find work (King, 1999). In the event
most drifted back home feeling that the privations that they had endured had been futile.
Research in the US, UK, Australia and New Zealand has found few positive employment
effects of workfare (Crisp and Fletcher, 2008). Similarly, referral to the MWA programme has
had no impact on the likelihood of individuals being employed compared to non-referrals
(DWP, 2012). More recently, concerns have been expressed that workfare may move some
into a 'low-pay, no-pay' cycle rather than sustainably resolving unemployment (Wright 2012;
Shildrick et al, 2012).
The potential effect of workfare on wages has been an enduring concern. 'The use of
workfare has escalated over the past year and this has had a significant effect on the
amount of paid work available….it all adds up to workfare replacing paid jobs and driving
down wages' (Clark, 2013: 2). Writing eighty years earlier Hannington (1976:113) argued: 'If
men are made to feel that they should be satisfied with a condition where they work for a
labour exchange or U.A.B pittance, then the tendency will be to regard themselves as
fortunate if they can get an ordinary job at wages fare below trade union standards.'
Nevertheless, the response of the trade union movement continues to be muted. The Trade
Union Congress (TUC) turned a blind eye to the camps and was even consulted on plans to
disallow the benefits of men who refused to attend. The TUC now has an ambiguous
position of opposing workfare, while supporting the Opposition's proposed 'Job Guarantee'
scheme which also advocates compulsory work (Clark, 2013). The vacuum has been partly
filled by grassroots campaigns. In the 1930s the National Unemployed Workers Movement
(NUWM) sought to persuade people not to go to the camps and publicly burned 'letters of
9
invitation' (Croucher, 1987). Boycott Welfare has provided advice and information to help
individuals resist being subject to the MWA.
Mandatory work programmes have several appeals to economically liberal policy makers.
First, such programmes are inexpensive. Second, they resuscitate and are built upon the
age-old distinction made between the 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor. Third, they
demonstrate that the 'undeserving' do not share mainstream values and must be compelled
to work. It is in this context that we can understand the Ministry of Labour view that futile
work tasks were a means to an end. Fourth, behavioural rather than structural explanations
of unemployment are prioritised. Fifth, in the modern era workfare fulfils an important
ideological function by 'stressing not the rights but the obligations of citizenship, the principal
obligation being to work in return for support' (Morris, 1994: 3). Finally, they mask 'the real
dynamic of abandonment' that has taken place through the 'dismantling of the protections
and defences constructed in post-war welfare capitalism against the rigours, vagaries,
demands and inequities of the market' (Clarke, 2005: 542).
Concluding remarks
Slater (2012) argues that policy makers have actively manufactured ignorance with regard to
the structural causes of unemployment to dominate the debate on welfare reform. Historical
evidence has not been immune from this process. A Government Adviser has, for example,
quoted the 1942 Beveridge Report to justify punitive welfare reform. He drew attention to the
proposition that the unemployed 'should be required, as a condition of continued benefit to
attend a work or training centre, such attendance being designed as a means of preventing
habituation to idleness and as a means of improving capacity for earnings' (Beveridge
quoted by Freud, 2009: 2). This attempt to invest current policy with some historical
legitimacy underlines the continuing relevance of Orwell's maxim that: 'He who controls the
past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past' (Orwell, 1949).
10
References
Beck, P.J. (2006) Using History, Making British Policy: the Treasury and the Foreign Office,
1950-1976. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Burnett, J. (1994) Idle Hands. The Experience of Unemployment, 1790-1990. London:
Routledge.
Clark, W. (2013) 'Workfare: a policy on the brink' in the Red Pepper, February 2013.
Colledge, D. (1989) Labour Camps. The British Experience. Sheffield: Sheffield Popular
Publishing.
Colledge, D. and Field, J. (1983) 'To Recondition Human Material. An account of a British
Labour Camp in the 1930s. An interview with William Heard'. History Workshop Journal, 15
(1): 152-166.
Clarke, J. (2005) 'New Labour's citizens: activated, empowered, responsibilized,
abandoned?' Critical Social Policy, 25 (4): 447-463.
Crisp, R. and Fletcher, D.R. (2008). A comparative review of workfare programmes in the
United States, Canada and Australia. London: Department for Work and Pensions,
Research Report No. 533.
Croucher, R. (1987) 'We refuse to starve in silence'. A History of the National Unemployed
Workers' Movement, 1920-1946. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Deacon, A. (1976) In Search of the Scrounger. Occasional Papers on Social Administration
No 60. London: G. Bell and sons.
Dean, H. (2012) 'The Ethical Deficit of the United Kingdom's Proposed Universal Credit:
Pimping the Precariat?' The Political Quarterly, 83 (2): 353-359.
Dean, H. and Taylor-Gooby, T. (1992) Dependency culture: The explosion of a myth.
London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Department for Work and Pensions (2013) Mandatory Programmes Official Statistics.
Publication Date: 22nd May 2013.
Department for Work and Pensions (2012) Evaluation of Mandatory Work Activity. London:
DWP Research Report 823.
Department for Work and Pensions Press Release, July 12th 2012. 'Mandatory work activity
scheme extended' .
Department for Work and Pensions Press Release, August 28th 2012. 'We need all our
young people to be working and contributing' say Mayor and Employment Minister.
Department for Work and Pensions (2010). Universal Credit: welfare that works. London:
HMSO.
Department for Work and Pensions (2010) 21st Century Welfare. London: HMSO.
11
Department for Work and Pensions (2008) Raising expectations and increasing support:
reforming welfare for the future. London: HMSO.
Department for Work and Pensions (2008) No-one written off: reforming welfare to reward
responsibility. London: HMSO.
Digby, A. (1989) British Welfare Policy: Workhouse to Workfare. London: Faber & Faber.
Freud, D. (2009) Reducing dependency, increasing opportunity: options for the future of
welfare to work'. An independent report to the Department for Work and Pensions. London:
Corporate Document Services.
Fryer, D. (2013) 'Unemployment', in T. Teo (ed) Encyclopaedia of Critical Psychology,
Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Gallie, D. (1994) 'Are the Unemployed and Underclass? Some Evidence from the Social
Change and Economic Life Initiative', Sociology, 28 (3), pp
Gamble, A. (2001) 'Neo-liberalism', Capital and Class, 75: 127-134.
Glyn, A. (2006) Capitalism Unleashed. Finance, Globalization, and Welfare. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Gregg, P. (2009) Job Guarantee: Evidence and Design.
Hannington, W. (1977) Unemployed Struggles, 1919-1936. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Hannington, W. (1976) The Problem of the Distressed Areas. London: EP Publishing Ltd.
Hayburn, R. (1983) The National Unemployed Workers' Movement, 1921-1936. A ReAppraisal. International Review of Social History, 20 (3): 279-295.
HM Government (2012) Social Justice; Transforming Lives. HMSO: London.
Hobsbawm, E. (1994) Age of Extremes. The short twentieth century, 1914-1991. London:
Abacus Books.
Home Office (2002) Prison Statistics, England and Wales, 2002. London: Office for National
Statistics.
Humphries, S and Gordon, P. (1994) Forbidden Britain. Our Secret Past, 1900-1960.
London: BBC Books.
Jahoda, M., Lazarfeld, P. and Zeisel, H, Marienthal (1972). The Sociography of an
Unemployed Community (1933 English edition). London Tavistock.
Kempson, E. (1996) Life on a Low Income. York: York Publishing Services.
King, D. (1999) In the Name of Liberalism: Illiberal Social Policy in the USA and Britain.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen, J.E. (2001) The Active Society and Activation Policy. Paper presented at the Cost
A13 Conference: Social Policy, Marginalisation and Citizenship. Aalborg University,
Denmark.
12
Lister, R. (2004) Poverty. Chichester: Wiley.
McKibbin, R. (1998) Classes and Cultures: England, 1918-1951. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Mead, L.M. (1991) 'The New Politics of the New Poverty'. Public Interest, 103: 3-20.
Morris, L. (1994) Dangerous Classes. The Underclass and Social Citizenship. London:
Routledge.
Offe, C. (2011). 'The Vanishing ''Shadow of the Future'' Guy Standing, The Precariat. The
New Dangerous Class'. European Journal of Sociology, 52 (3): 466-474.
Orwell. G. (1949) Nineteen Eighty-Four. London: Secker and Warburg.
Peck, J. (2001) Workfare States. New York: Guildford Press.
Piven, F.F. (2010) 'A Response to Wacquant.' Theoretical Criminology, 14 (1): 111-116.
Scannell, P. (1980) Broadcasting and the politics of unemployment 1930-1935. Media,
Culture and Society, 1980, 2: 15-28.
Shildrick, T; MacDonald, R; Webster, C; and Garthwaite, K. (2012) Poverty and insecurity.
Life on low-pay, no-pay Britain. Bristol: Policy Press.
Slater, T. (2012) 'The Myth of ''Broken Britain'': Welfare Reform and the Production of
Ignorance', Antipode 45: 1-22.
Standing, G. (2011) 'The Precariat'. Journal of Social Policy, 41, 1: 1-17.
Stedman-Jones, J. (1984) Outcast London: a study of the relationship between classes in
Victorian society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Stiglitz, J. (2012) 'A Banking System Needs to Serve Society, Not the Other way'. Vanity Fair.
Accessed at: www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/01stiglitz-depression201201.
Theodore, N. (1998) 'On parallel paths: the Clinton/Blair agenda and the new geopolitics of
workfare', paper presented at the Annual Conference of British Geographers, Guildford, 5-8
January, www.rgs.org.
Toynbee. P. (2003) Hard work: life in low-pay Britain. London: Bloomsbury.
Van Berkel, R. et al (2012) Governance of the activation policies in Europe: Introduction.
International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 32 (5/6): 260-272.
Van Oorschot, W. (2006) Making the difference in social Europe: Deservingness perceptions
among citizens of European welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy 16(1): 23-42.
Wacquant, L. (2009) Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Welshman, J. (2006) 'The concept of the unemployable'. Economic History Review LIX, 3:
578-606.
13
Welshman, J. (2013) Underclass: A history of the excluded. London: Bloomsbury.
Whiteside, N. (1991) Bad Times. Unemployment in British Social and Political History.
London: Faber & Faber.
Wright, S. (2012) 'Welfare-to-work, agency and personal responsibility.' Journal of Social
Policy, 41 (2): 309-328.
14